As a speech pathologist doing hearing testing in the schools, I often found children with ear infections and the answer was almost always YES when I asked if their parents smoked. My own grandchildren suffered with ear infections and tubes in their ears for much of their childhood because of their father's smoking. The children need to be protected, by law, from this type of health risk.

Thanks Nurse. Now when do we allow the state to begin inserting themselves into the lives of families with overweight kids or kids with dirty dental hygiene? Football and ice hockey are also costing a lot in future health care costs as well; better get those young boxers too!

BTW, if you are actually a nurse, perhaps you should check your Taber's dictionary...it is "bronchitis."

Maybe they can write some legislation to cut down on STUPID VA DRIVERS. You know, the ones that slow down when coming up on a green light, stopping in the middle of road to let other cars out of driveways and streets, in ability to merge onto a high way, driving 10-20 mph under the speed limit when the road is wet, not going when the light turns green, jamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow. letting everyone cut in front of them, speeding up when you try to pass, not letting people pass, driving 10-20 mph under the speed limit in the fast lane and not moving over. jamming on their brakes at the sight of a cop even though they are going under the speed limit, and of course talking, eating texting and putting on their makeup while driving.

It may be true that smoking around children or even while pregnant causes health problems, but, what gives them the right to tell you what you can & cannot do? I'm fed up with government; ie Fed, State, & local telling me how to live. Common sense tells you smoking is bad for your health as well as your childs. These same hypocrites who pass such idiot laws themselves smoke, drink & drive. Stop trying to regulate LIFE!!!!

I am a smoker and have kids. I do not smoke in any of my vehicles while my kids are inside and one of my vehicles I don't smoke in at all (the primary child-hauler).

While I agree with the intent of the law, I would much rather see parents who smoke take more responsibility toward ensuring their kids health and avoid exposing them to smoke than for the government to step in as a nanny. But, I would like to see those that don't take that responsibility be reprimanded for it.

"god-fearer", I'm convinced that you don't have your head and your butt wired together. Do you see un-lit cigarettes being in the vehicle with kids being okay? If so, than by your logic, firearms should be okay provided that they're not actively being used and are properly secured.

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents anunwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy tomake one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harmto the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minorrisk involved is unwarranted.

Parents who smoke around their children unwittingly cause their children live in fear of losing the people they love most to terrible diseases caused by smoking. Quitting is hard, but do it for the love of your kids and because you don't want them to grow up to live with this addiction. Help is out there-please make the call!

I was interviewed on BBC Scotland radio this morning on the subject of banning smoking in cars (listen here for 7 days, 2.17 hours in). Sleepy though I was—and coming off the back of a hilariously one-sided vox pop—I tried to make the point that the simple act of opening a window in a moving vehicle provides ample ventilation to disperse secondhand smoke.

Prof John Britton had earlier told the BBC that levels of secondhand smoke in cars are twenty times higher than in smoky bars. As a medical man, his opinion naturally trumped mine as far as the presenter was concerned. Nevertheless, it's worth finding out this '20 times higher' claim comes from.

A good place to start is a heavily referenced report from ASH (UK). It claims that:

According to a report by the Ontario Medical Association, secondhand smoke levels in cars can be 23 times greater than in a house.

ASH give a citation of this report from the Ontario Medical Association, which says:

Based on the evidence that exposure to SHS in a vehicle is 23-times more toxic than in a house due to the smaller enclosed space, the state of Colorado drafted a bill that would impose fines on adults caught smoking in cars when a child is present.

But what evidence is this? Their only reference turns out to be a news story from the Rocky Mountain News, not exactly a reliable scientific source.

ASH do, however, have another source:

A study comparing secondhand smoke particle concentrations in a vehicle with those in a bar which allowed smoking, found in-vehicle concentrations 20-times greater than inside the bar.

Again there is a citation, this time to an actual scientific journal, but the article in question does not measure secondhand smoke in cars, nor does it attempt to. It certainly doesn't give any estimate of how much more secondhand smoke is in cars than other locations, and it doesn't cite any references that might lead us to find an article that does.

And there the trail ends. Such is the game of Chinese whispers that passes for evidence-based medicine these days.

If you want to find some real science on this issue, you have to turn to an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study from 2006, which measured particulate matter (PM2.5) in vehicles.

Bearing in mind that the EPA's 'hazardous' level for 24 hour exposure is 250 ng/m3, this study found average peak concentrations of 271 ng/m3. But they did so by keeping the windows closed. When a window was opened, the level was only 51 ng/m3. This is a fraction of what would be found in a smoky bar (200-500 ng/m3) and is well within the EPA's limit (which, remember, is for 24 hour exposures, not the occasional car journey). And after smoking, levels quickly fell to the same found in a nonsmokers' car.

The study also measured carbon monoxide levels, with even less impressive results. When the window was opened, levels barely changed at all.

Another study sometimes cited carried out a similar experiment but only opened the window by 3 inches. Even with this restricted ventilation, average levels of PM2.5 were 119 ng/m3—well below the EPA's hazardous level.

All of which suggests that—if smoking in cars is a problem at all—it is one that can be simply solved by opening the window. And that, of course, is what everyone already does.

Would I agree with a law forcing people to open the window whilst smoking? I probably would, if I thought that would be the end of the matter, but we all know that it won't be because protecting people from secondhand smoke is not the purpose of the Royal College of Physicians' latest 'demands'. By calling for a total ban on smoking in cars, even when no one else is present, they have finally given the game away. This issue isn't about science and it's not about 'protecting' nonsmokers. It never has been.

I was interviewed on BBC Scotland radio this morning on the subject of banning smoking in cars (listen here for 7 days, 2.17 hours in). Sleepy though I was—and coming off the back of a hilariously one-sided vox pop—I tried to make the point that the simple act of opening a window in a moving vehicle provides ample ventilation to disperse secondhand smoke.

Prof John Britton had earlier told the BBC that levels of secondhand smoke in cars are twenty times higher than in smoky bars. As a medical man, his opinion naturally trumped mine as far as the presenter was concerned. Nevertheless, it's worth finding out this '20 times higher' claim comes from.

A good place to start is a heavily referenced report from ASH (UK). It claims that:

According to a report by the Ontario Medical Association, secondhand smoke levels in cars can be 23 times greater than in a house.

ASH give a citation of this report from the Ontario Medical Association, which says:

Based on the evidence that exposure to SHS in a vehicle is 23-times more toxic than in a house due to the smaller enclosed space, the state of Colorado drafted a bill that would impose fines on adults caught smoking in cars when a child is present.

But what evidence is this? Their only reference turns out to be a news story from the Rocky Mountain News, not exactly a reliable scientific source.

ASH do, however, have another source:

A study comparing secondhand smoke particle concentrations in a vehicle with those in a bar which allowed smoking, found in-vehicle concentrations 20-times greater than inside the bar.

Again there is a citation, this time to an actual scientific journal, but the article in question does not measure secondhand smoke in cars, nor does it attempt to. It certainly doesn't give any estimate of how much more secondhand smoke is in cars than other locations, and it doesn't cite any references that might lead us to find an article that does.

And there the trail ends. Such is the game of Chinese whispers that passes for evidence-based medicine these days.

I wish they would crack down on throwing your butt out your car window. Or when your walking or standing or anywhere in public. It's called littering and it's disgusting. And if you're caught throwing it onto private property, I say the owner gets to deal with you.

<quoted text>Stinkin' gv't telling ME what to DO again. I've had ENOUGH. NOW they're takin' away my constitutional RIGHT to put my OWN children at risk.

Again, I will say...you put your own children at risk when you allow them to play football, ice hockey, ride bicycles. Yes, you certainly do have a right to put your children at risk. Putting your child in the car alone with their 75-year-old grandmother puts them at increased risk for a wreck. If you look at the data, allowing children to become full-time professional actors is way riskier; look at the outcomes (and the parenting of those kids). Lots of risks.

Actually, the risk of second-hand smoke to passengers in an automobile is statistically quite low. If you observe vehicles with a driver who is smoking, the vast majority have their window cracked and are blowing the smoke out the window. It is a way, way lower risk than many other situations present.

But, alas, I know the mantra of the big government crowd...let's all chant together:"But if we can save even ONE life, it is worth it."

It may be true that smoking around children or even while pregnant causes health problems, but, what gives them the right to tell you what you can & cannot do? I'm fed up with government; ie Fed, State, & local telling me how to live. Common sense tells you smoking is bad for your health as well as your childs. These same hypocrites who pass such idiot laws themselves smoke, drink & drive. Stop trying to regulate LIFE!!!!

Simple - you harm another life because of your ignorance, the govt steps in.Unfortunately there are too many idiots that endanger the lives of children/people - knowingly or unknowingly. Who is there to protect them, especially the little kids?

This is a major pet peave of mine and I'd love to see legislation take care of it. I'm sorry, but if you are STUPID enough to smoke in the vehicle with your kids they should be taken away from you! The child has no say in their early death from this disgusting "habit". Personally, I think they should take away your health insurance, etc. if you smoke. It seems all smokers are entitled to their "right" to smoke where they want.I'll continue to be a real %$#* when I encounter people smoking near building entrances, etc. If you want to kill yourself, there are much quicker ways to do so than making your family endure the lengthy suffering of cancer that you will reap from your "habit".Quick fix, quit being a burden on society and stop smoking!!!!

Ever notice the type of car and the type of people in the cars that light up with kids in them? The stereotype lives on .....

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.